Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is belief in God or the Bible necessary to believe in a massive flood.
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 46 of 110 (509153)
05-19-2009 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Theodoric
05-18-2009 8:54 AM


Doesn't Moses die at the end of Deuteronomy ?
When would this scribes have written it down ? I mean, the first five books of the bible are the basis of Judaism, and Judaism has been around for a long time.
I know there is a tendency to invalidate every aspect of the bible, but I mean at some point you gotta say that the Jewish people do have a history and probably did keep a record of it. if you start saying ''the jews never were in egypt'',''Moses never existed'', ''David never existed'' etc. then at some point you have to replace it with something. you can't just say, well the Jewish people were actually a small tribe in the desert who invented themselves a history
I mean, no one questions Julius's Caesar Gallic wars even though we have a total of only 10 documents speaking about it, with the oldest one being 1000 years after the event.
But everyone seems to question the jewish account of their own history, even though they have a shitload more manuscripts and very accurate methods of transcribing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Theodoric, posted 05-18-2009 8:54 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Granny Magda, posted 05-19-2009 3:32 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 05-19-2009 7:36 AM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 47 of 110 (509154)
05-19-2009 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by dwise1
05-18-2009 10:19 AM


Thats very interesting, is Haggadah only an oral tradition ?
Because if it also is a written tradition, then we could look at the grammar-form of the writing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by dwise1, posted 05-18-2009 10:19 AM dwise1 has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 48 of 110 (509158)
05-19-2009 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by dwise1
05-18-2009 10:19 AM


Also, what does it matter whether Moses or whoever believed that something was myth or history? Just because somebody believes something to be true does not make it true.
I hope that my previous posts clarified this a bit.
When was Moses? And when was Genesis finally written down -- ie, ink put to parchment?
Dates are not my speciality. It seems there is a trend in archaeologist to reduce egyptian chronology by some 350 years I think, which would put it in line with the biblical account. I know nothing in this domain, so you can bash this all you want.
But I do think that Moses wrote Genesis down from a collection of written manuscripts he had in his possession. This seems to be shown by the many times in Genesis when the ancient name of a place is mentioned (such as a river) but then a 'footnote' is added such as ''which is now called the euphrate''. As if the author (moses) was simply working on previous manuscripts he had. This would not happen in oral tradition, since the ancient name of the place would almost automatically be replaced by the new name very fast.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by dwise1, posted 05-18-2009 10:19 AM dwise1 has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 49 of 110 (509164)
05-19-2009 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by slevesque
05-19-2009 2:59 AM


quote:
if you start saying ''the jews never were in egypt'',''Moses never existed'', ''David never existed'' etc. then at some point you have to replace it with something. you can't just say, well the Jewish people were actually a small tribe in the desert who invented themselves a history
Er... Why not? And why would we insert a mythic history when more exhaustive and reliable accounts dry up? Just because we don't have a full answer doesn't mean that we should embrace un-evidenced stories.
quote:
I mean, no one questions Julius's Caesar Gallic wars even though we have a total of only 10 documents speaking about it, with the oldest one being 1000 years after the event.
Who told you that? We have Caesar's own account of the Gallic Wars.
quote:
But everyone seems to question the jewish account of their own history, even though they have a shitload more manuscripts and very accurate methods of transcribing it.
But that's just not true. It's just a lie that Christians tell each other in order to feel less silly about believing a mythic account as if it were fact.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Missed a bit.

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 2:59 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 3:52 AM Granny Magda has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 50 of 110 (509170)
05-19-2009 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Granny Magda
05-19-2009 3:32 AM


I didn't say we don't have any manuscripts of the gallic wars, I'm saying we have few, and that they are much later then the event.
The Caesar's account of the gallic wars we have is not the copy Caesar himself wrote, it is a transcripted copy from copy from a copy ... from the original.
But that's just not true. It's just a lie that Christians tell each other in order to feel less silly about believing a mythic account as if it were fact.
May I ask how do you know it isn't true ? My fahter went to Israel with Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, who is one of the greatest scholar alive today. I think he knows a thing or two about jewish history and their transcription methods ...
Besides, the OT remained the same to about 99,9% from the dead sea scrolls up to our current day bible. Why couldn't the Jews achieve similar transcription accuracy ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Granny Magda, posted 05-19-2009 3:32 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Granny Magda, posted 05-19-2009 8:13 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 55 by Theodoric, posted 05-19-2009 8:25 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 101 by Theodoric, posted 05-22-2009 5:38 PM slevesque has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 51 of 110 (509182)
05-19-2009 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by slevesque
05-19-2009 2:46 AM


quote:
My point was only this: if the author of genesis thought it was real history, then it leaves us the possibility to test it to see if it is true. But if the author thought it was a myth, then there is absolutely no reason for us to think it could be history.
I completely disagree with that. In this case there appears to be no good reason to privilege the author's assessment over anyone elses. As I have already pointed out, by your own claims, the author treats mythical and legendary material as equally "historical".
Equally you believe that my assessment of the story as a myth or legend is likely wrong. But if I wrote a book describing it as such you wouldn't take that as any less reason to take it seriously.
(Although the creation of the rainbow is clearly a mythic element, so I don't see how anyone could regard the story as at all likely to be completely historical).
quote:
BTW, theology is not the same as mythology.
That wasn't the point I was making. Your assertion in the OP was that Genesis was NOT written as a religious book. If it is primarily theology that assertion is completely false.
quote:
Here are some people that I know of who spoke on the intention of the author to record history: James Barr, Dr. Andrew Steinmann, Dr. Robert Mccabe, Dr Ting Wang
Which doesn't show either that they agree with your initial point or that the author distinguished history from myth.
quote:
Dr. Clifford Wilson also said this which is pretty compelling:
I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen

Which tells us only that Dr. Clifford Wilson is highly biased. The mainstream of archaeologists working in the region have a far different view of the accuracy of the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 2:46 AM slevesque has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 52 of 110 (509184)
05-19-2009 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by slevesque
05-19-2009 2:59 AM


quote:
I know there is a tendency to invalidate every aspect of the bible, but I mean at some point you gotta say that the Jewish people do have a history and probably did keep a record of it. if you start saying ''the jews never were in egypt'',''Moses never existed'', ''David never existed'' etc. then at some point you have to replace it with something. you can't just say, well the Jewish people were actually a small tribe in the desert who invented themselves a history
Actually we don't have to take a specific point and say "all books written after here are history" or "all books dealing with this period or later are history". Each book should be taken on its own merits.
We can be pretty sure that the Exodus never happened as described. Nor did Joshua's conquest. We can be reasonably sure that at the least the achievements of David and Solomon have been exaggerated to a significant degree, and their existence is not certain. Instead of simply looking at the Bible, the historical and archaeological evidence has to be considered.
quote:
I mean, no one questions Julius's Caesar Gallic wars even though we have a total of only 10 documents speaking about it, with the oldest one being 1000 years after the event.
There's a huge difference between the date of the oldest surviving manuscript and the date of original composition. The Gallic Wars is a first-hand account - the flood story isn't. There's a huge difference in the evidence surrounding the Gallic Wars and that surrounding Noah's Flood. If you care about the truth, you can't ignore those facts.
quote:
But everyone seems to question the jewish account of their own history, even though they have a shitload more manuscripts and very accurate methods of transcribing it.
Because number and age of manuscripts is NOT the most important factor. Christian apologists like to emphasise it because it's one where the Bible scores well. And in doing so they reveal their bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 2:59 AM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Peg, posted 05-21-2009 8:31 AM PaulK has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 53 of 110 (509185)
05-19-2009 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by slevesque
05-19-2009 2:46 AM


Writing or Recording History
quote:
Here are some people that I know of who spoke on the intention of the author to record history
If you're going to look at the reality of the Bible, then stop dealing in possibilities.
Reality: Each writer has a style of their own. Even on this board, if you pay attention you can see the various styles of writing and debating. The individual doesn't vary much.
The flood story isn't written by one person. There are two distinct styles of writing. One is the Priestly writer and one is the J writer. (See documentary hypothesis)
The other trait of a writer is to remain consistent within their own writing. The flood story doesn't do that. The Priestly writer refers to the deity as God and the J writer refers to the deity as YHWH.
We also have a difference in referring to the gender of the animals. In the English Bible the words are translated as male and female, but the Hebrew words are different.
In Genesis 7:2 the words translated male and female carries the meaning of man and his wife.
Genesis 7:2
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens *, the male ('iysh) and his female ('ishshah): and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
In Genesis 7:9 the words refer to gender of humans or animals.
Genesis 7:9
There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male (Zakar) and the female (N@qebah), as God had commanded Noah.
Each writer is consistent with their own style. The person splicing the two stories together didn't take that into account. That was his style.
Oral stories do change with the culture, so we have no way of knowing what the absolute original version of this tale is, let alone the original creator's intent.
Odds are there was a flood (maybe small, maybe large) at some time that influenced the original creator of the tale, but the details have probably changed through the ages. Just between these two writers mentioned above we see the details changed to suit the writer and again with the person who spliced the two stories together. Even today's rendition of the flood story, the writers adjust the details.
This excerpt is taken from a book of Bible stories.
Again and again Noah warned the people to repent of their sins or they would be destroyed in the flood. None of them believed him.
The text in the Bible says nothing about Noah warning the people of the impending disaster and asking them to repent.
So the details are unimportant since they can be changed as one pleases. The important part is that there probably was a good sized flood. What lessons a storyteller wished to teach with that story is up to him and changes from storyteller to storyteller to meet the needs of the culture/religion.
ABE: How does the need for Moses to be the author of the Pentateuch fit in with the question you asked in your OP?
The question to answer is this one: Is belief in God or the Bible necessary to believe of a past recent massive flooding event ? ...
Once again, I do not want piles of evidence for or against such an event, just discuss if you can believe in naturalism and still accept the idea of such an event as possible. It obviously doesn't have to be worldwide lol, since people could have exagerated such an event to the extent it was worldwide.
(I want to specify that personnally, I believe that there was such an event in the past that do link all the different accounts of it in cultures around the world)
Edited by purpledawn, : ABE

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 2:46 AM slevesque has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 54 of 110 (509186)
05-19-2009 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by slevesque
05-19-2009 3:52 AM


quote:
I didn't say we don't have any manuscripts of the gallic wars, I'm saying we have few, and that they are much later then the event.
And you are wrong, as Caesar's personal account proves.
quote:
The Caesar's account of the gallic wars we have is not the copy Caesar himself wrote,
What do you want? An autographed copy in Caesar's own hand? Maybe an personal inscription? "To my dear friend Brutus, hope you enjoy the book, I trust you will always be watching my back..."
Do you put the Bible to so extreme a test?
quote:
it is a transcripted copy from copy from a copy ... from the original.
Just like the Bible, except that there is no doubt that in the case of Caesar's account of the Gallic wars that Caesar was in fact the author. There is, at the most generous assessment, grave doubt that traditional attributions for the books of the Bible are correct.
quote:
May I ask how do you know it isn't true ?
Because the writings from Roman antiquity provide multiple sources confirming events like the Gallic conquest. These events are also confirmed by archaeology. Many of the events depicted in the Bible simply do not have the same backing. I'm sorry, but that is simply a fact. There is an copious evidence that Caesar was a real person, from coins and monuments to writings by those, like Cicero, who knew him first hand.
The same cannot be said of Moses, who only seems to exist in the Bible.
quote:
Besides, the OT remained the same to about 99,9% from the dead sea scrolls up to our current day bible. Why couldn't the Jews achieve similar transcription accuracy ?
I'm not casting doubt on the transcription methods. You can transcribe a fairy story as accurately as you like, it won't make it true.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 3:52 AM slevesque has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 55 of 110 (509187)
05-19-2009 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by slevesque
05-19-2009 3:52 AM


quote:
My fahter went to Israel with Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, who is one of the greatest scholar alive today. I think he knows a thing or two about jewish history and their transcription methods ...
Name dropping will get you no where. I have studied with Professor Anson Rainey in Israel. Big whoop dee doo.
To make these claimd about Fruchtenbaum seems quite ridiculous.
quote:
one of the greatests scholars alive today"
What a joke!
After being forced to leave the family home, in 1962 he began college education at Shelton College in New Jersey. He moved to Cedarville College in Ohio, where he graduated with a BA degree in Hebrew and Greek in 1966. He then moved to Israel, where he studied archeology, ancient history, historical geography, and Hebrew at the American Institute of Holy Land Studies and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem...
Three years later (1971), he graduated with a Master of Theology degree from Dallas. He and his wife then moved to Israel and settled in Jerusalem to work with the local church and to train young Israeli Jewish believers for Christian service...He has completed his doctoral dissertation, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology at New York University in 1989.
Wiki
He is a jew for jesus and a theologist. Nothing more. Certainly not one of the greatest scholars alive today.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 3:52 AM slevesque has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 56 of 110 (509395)
05-21-2009 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by slevesque
05-17-2009 2:54 AM


slevesque writes:
The question I am asking myself right now is this one: how come there would have been such a major cultural influence on the tribes' respective flood myths-accounts (hawai, peru, fiji islands, aztecs, australia, papago, cherokee(US), Cree (Canada), etc.) but no influence on their respective myths of creation.
The creation myths of different religions vary greatly...probably moreso then the flood story.... im not sure what you mean by you're question here???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by slevesque, posted 05-17-2009 2:54 AM slevesque has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 57 of 110 (509398)
05-21-2009 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by slevesque
05-18-2009 2:20 AM


slevesque writes:
If it is fallacious, then you should be able to falsify it. You have to prove independantly that Moses viewed Genesis as myth, but still used the historical grammatical structure. If you don't have a counter example, you can say ''but you could be wrong!'' all you want, but it won't have much weight.
one thing that can be said for that is that if Moses was writing a myth, why did he make it so detailed??
why would he go into the minor details of the height and lenght and breadth of the ark, what sort of wood it was made from, how they used tar to make it water tight etc
why would he tell us the age of Noah, the month and day in which the flood bagan
all this points to a real history as opposed to a mythical story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by slevesque, posted 05-18-2009 2:20 AM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by bluescat48, posted 05-21-2009 7:53 AM Peg has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 58 of 110 (509399)
05-21-2009 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by PaulK
05-18-2009 2:47 AM


PaulK writes:
Which means that I was correct from the start. The Flood story appears in a book that is more myth and legend and therefore cannot be assumed to have any but the most remote historical foundation.
thats not quite right
if we want to find out how the Jews viewed the writings of Moses, we can determine it by looking at the teachings of Jesus (a jew)
He used the account of Adam and Eve as the basis for his teaching on divorce. In Matt 19:4-6 Jesus quotes from Genesis 2.24
The account shows that he viewed Adam and Eve as real people and the marriage arrangement as put in place by God himself. He applied it to a question that was posed to him by jewish teachers....therefore, if he knew it to be nothing more then myth, why would he use it as a basis for his teaching?
The truth is that neither he, nor his jewish listeners, viewed it as a myth.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2009 2:47 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 05-21-2009 8:16 AM Peg has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 59 of 110 (509400)
05-21-2009 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Peg
05-21-2009 7:40 AM


Peg writes:
all this points to a real history as opposed to a mythical story.
In reality it just points to the story being based on historical events similar to such writings as the Illiad or Gone With the Wind, mythological stories set in a historical context.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Peg, posted 05-21-2009 7:40 AM Peg has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 60 of 110 (509404)
05-21-2009 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Peg
05-21-2009 7:49 AM


quote:
thats not quite right
if we want to find out how the Jews viewed the writings of Moses, we can determine it by looking at the teachings of Jesus (a jew)
But for the purposes of this discussion we don't particularly want to know the views of Jews living at the time of Jesus. They are even less relevant than the views of the author. (And Jesus is only one Jew so looking at his views - even assuming that the Gospels accurately convey them - is even less useful).
So, your objection is a complete irrelevance.
quote:
The truth is that neither he, nor his jewish listeners, viewed it as a myth.
If they didn't recognise it as a myth or legend then that says more about them than it does about the story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Peg, posted 05-21-2009 7:49 AM Peg has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024